Contradictory Statements, Or Things Lost In Translation?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by surgingshark, Apr 24, 2004.

  1. surgingshark

    surgingshark Valued Member

    Luke 3:38

    Cainan was the son of Enos. Enos was the son of Seth. Seth was the son of Adam. Adam was the son of God.

    John 3:16

    For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


    ...am I missing something here?
     
  2. Omicron

    Omicron is around.

    I think it's probably a translation thing...I'm sure a Christian person would easily explain such an error, saying that Adam being the "son of God" really means that he was created by him.
     
  3. Capt Ann

    Capt Ann Valued Member

    Omicron is right........Adam was the son of God in the sense of being created by Him, just as there is a place in the book of Job where the angels are described as "sons of God".

    Jesus is called the "ony begotten Son", and in ancient Greek (the actual language this passage was written in) "only begotten" is actually just one word--monogenes. It can mean "unique", or "only one of a kind". This word never refers to someone or something created by another. The word would be used for an actual, physical, "only son", born or drawn out from another. This word gives me the same picture as used in the ancient creed describing Jesus as "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God."
     
  4. Kimpatsu

    Kimpatsu Banned Banned

    And yet, the opening verse of Genesis reads, "In the beginning, the gods created heaven and earth..."
     
  5. Capt Ann

    Capt Ann Valued Member

    Not so..... the opening in Hebrew (to which I assume you are alluding), says,"In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth". While "Elohim" is a plural masculine noun, it refers to the One God who is omnipotent and omnipresent (the plural refers to God's attributes of infinite power, love, etc.). There is, however, only ONE God, as can be seen by the verb usage and the following phrase, where the Spirit (singular) of Elohim moved over the waters.

    Usage of plural words for a single deity was common in ancient times. As an example, when the Israelites left Egypt and built a golden calf in the wilderness, they referred to it as, "your god (elohim) that brought you out of Egypt". No one seriously argues from this that the Israelites built more than one golden calf at the time.

    Throughout the Old Testament, the most common reference to God is "Yahweh your Elohim" (the LORD your God). Yahweh is singular.
     
  6. slc

    slc Banned Banned

    The Hebrew version is slightly more complex than our English version, as Capt Ann says.

    In Genesis the creation is described differently, or should I say God is defined differently, to our English version.

    The thoughs, words and actions are split into the idea of the holy trinity. The "person" generally considered to be God in Christianity has the thoughts e.g. "and he saw that light was good". The person considered to be the Son, actually more closely the Word, said things. The person considered to be the Holy Spirit performed the actions.

    Father, Son, Holy Spirit; Mind, Body, Spirit.
     
  7. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon New Member

    This is one rare occassion I will agree with Ann. This view is agreed to by 'most reputable Bible scholars'.
     
  8. ade

    ade New Member

    Interesting that during the creation God did the "let there be light, and there was light" thing, but didn't make the stars until a couple of days later. Don't tell me He can't work in the dark.
     
  9. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon New Member

    Actually this is more logical than it may seem. 'Let there be light' may have described the big bang and the stars and other celestial objects formed. Of course all this took billions of years and not a few thousand.
     
  10. killbill

    killbill New Member

    The most important thing to realize is that it is pointless to take everything the bible says literally. One of the major problems is translation, another problem is that the English used in the King James version of the bible is not quite the same as modern day english. (it is not different in any major way, but many subtle things are)
     
  11. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    (scratches ear) I'm sorry, I don't think I heard that correctly. Did you say that you agreed with Ann?!?

    We gotta mark this day on the calendar!
     
  12. Kwajman

    Kwajman Penguin in paradise....

    Well, Capt. Ann, you've just been promoted to the person I'll refer any biblical questions to. I was fairly knowledgeable, but that answer blew me away.
     
  13. Capt Ann

    Capt Ann Valued Member

    :) Why, thank you, Frank!! I needed that!



    ...and I'll return the favor. This is the way I tend to view this passage, as well.

    {QUICK!! Somebody lock the thread!! Capt Ann and Shunyadragon BOTH agree on something!!}
     
  14. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon New Member

    Actually two things. I accept symbolic meanings in the bible for many parallels in science, but not the literal inerrancy in the interpretation of scripture. I generally refer to theologians and researchers from different viewpoints on understanding the translations and other issues in Biblical Academics.

    The main difference between Ann and I is who we accept as 'reputable biblical scholars' and the diversity of viewpoints allowed in understanding scripture. Ann only accepts a much narrower definition of these issues. I accept a very broad ecclectic understanding of scripture. From my viewpoint the final word is still out and unknown on many issues.

    There will occasionally be some overlap and agreement, but when there is not the fur will fly!
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2004

Share This Page